I suggest / request upping it for the threes to the fours level or upping it by more! and
equally I don’t see why it is not upped for the 2s as well? !
Is there reason that TL4’s ought to be rewarded with more likes (that they do not use) that doesn’t also apply to our most active users? Who run out & therefore have to ration them
The software designer (Jeff Atwood) intended the TL levels to reflect contribution made by the most active users.
TL is a gamification paradigm - I don’t believe the defaults apply here in a chronic care peer support community - because we prize showing sympathy & empathy & encouragement for others. Our needs & values where not the imagined use case
I can only conclude that the last time I asked for the limit to be raised the decision was biased by attitude towards me. That determined an unwillingness to act - not the validity of the suggestion or its popular support amongst community members
Certainly the reason claimed as justification is not true as stated.
So let’s have a little bit of very simple action that allows spreading more encouragement and empathy between our members
Oh I agree, the regulars need more. I don’t like to just ignore newbies, particularly late night posts. I like to at least be able to acknowledge their post with a “like” if I’m not up to responding due to my own stroke brain limitations.
It’s a way to acknowledge their post has at least been seen, so they don’t have to wonder whether they’ve successfully managed to create a post or not. For me, Likes are more than just giving kudos for a good post.
If I’ve used up my quota in the day, I just feel guilty! I know I shouldn’t, it’s not my responsibility, it’s just the way I am. And it has happened during the day too when it’s been quiet too.
When I first encountered the strange concept of trust levels and badges I did wonder what it had to do with this kind of situation, but of course going hand in hand with that came the binary choice to accept it or leave. Now I see it exists here simply because somebody originally decided to use software designed for a different purpose.
I don’t think that this kind of thing is by any means unique, it’s unfortunately endemic in our present world of lazy cut and paste design.
The choice of how to provide a forum is a tricky one. Writing software on one’s own that’s purpose made is a hugely complex bug ridden labour intensive undertaking - as the stroke association found out and abandoned and the post office also found out and didn’t abandon!
When you then consider what 3rd party to use there are many See
for a very small subset and a discussion of some of the points .
Discourse has in its favour. It is public domain, although hosting it is demanding and a lot of people buy their hosting from the product support team - called Civil Discourse Construction Company
On the downside it was built by a guy who made his millions from stack overflow a software development community with testosterone fuel young and combative individuals - so it’s paradigms build in things like gamification, a strong surveillance system and a set of policing tools at the back end and a very rich powerful set of tools at the front end that make for a complicated user interface. There are topics for discussion implied by that.
Because it is extensible and undergoing continuous development it has never been stable enough to be well documented - there’s and ongoing discussion forum where people ask questions and developers answer with what’s the current capability. There are a number of support organisations and individuals who offer services and plugins, themes, extensions etc
This is all first generation.
I have been having conversations in many places about what might be second generation - that is software that is moved on from generalised first generation and starts building more niche requirements like chronic care.
I have various conversations coming up this year. I have tried to talk to discourse and there is a thread there about some needs but they haven’t embraced the idea yet - in fact their moderator is anti nebulous discussion in favour of specific support of software already written - I hope to ask the CEO to signpost a better contact
I don’t think the selection of discourse was an easy one, and it’s selection raises questions which I don’t think however being addressed but have nevertheless been mostly adequate But frail as has been exposed once or twice
I think the lazy cut n’ paste is perhaps a bit harsh! Discourse is the same business model as GoDaddy or WordPress
I was referring to the general practice of just using something which is more or less acceptable rather than using something properly designed or tailored for the job in hand. We’ve all experienced frustrating examples of this when for instance attempting to contact organisations via call centres and automated call handling systems. I’ve also personally seen some glaringly badly written official letters clearly constructed using cut and paste extracts from goodness knows where. These were letters constructed by supposedly well educated people in well paid positions.
Sorry, I digress a little there. .Getting back onto topic, I think in this particular case the Stroke Association surely has enough spare funds in the bank to ensure that the forum functions in a simple and user friendly way to assist the people who are, often desperately, trying to get help by using it?
If you look at the forum rules on this forum and on pretty much every other discourse site you’ll see that they share cut and paste. I can’t remember where i’ve seen it but there are (were?) default discourse text that haven’t been changed like the laws that apply are the state of Washington or something - It may have been fixed now :). Googling the list of things under rules like “no useful purpose…” returns ooodles of discourse sites that haven’t changed it
Where your last paragraph touches on things - I have been told that resources are a too tight. I also watched YouTube video that shows growth in reserves (bottom row of the table)
We don’t have a clear view of the balance in competing demands. But nor do we have a conduit that shares them or facilitates discussion - an area of opportunity IMHO.
Thanks for your feedback on the ‘likes’ feature. It’s really helpful to hear your thoughts.
We’re taking your comments on board and looking into some updates in design and functionality. While these changes aren’t happening right away, we’re keen on involving you in the testing phase when we’re ready. Your insights will be invaluable in shaping these improvements.
Hi @CommunityAdmin, as a techie myself, may I be bold enough to suggest the SA adopts a more user-centred design approach (if not already) prior to testing such features?
User-led research on how people find, use, need and participate in the forum will give much richer insight into use cases for development than reacting to problems (like this one) or waiting until the testing phase when design has largely been completed.
I see that there are opportunities to be involved in testing the new website and I’m new to the relatively new to the forum so I’m late to the party.
I hope the testing of new ideas, features and functionality, is happening and involving forum users (and correct me here) at both:
functionality testing phase by admins and informed users (can I / does it do what I expect and can I find what I’m looking for).
end user testing phase by the general user or newbie (is it fit for purpose and good enough to release?)
One important general point made earlier, certainly as a newish stroke survivor, I personally struggle with understanding the rationale or value of the concept of gamification in the context of stroke, support, resources and virtual community engagement. Of all the things to have to grapple with the majority of people on here I suspect haven’t a clue (and do not care) whether they are getting points, emojis, unlocked access, or badges. I might be unpopular saying it but this is seriously the least of my priorities on the forum. It just makes my experience all the more confusing and difficult. I appreciate others may have a more positive experience.
Sorry for the tangent but I am slightly stunned to see others asking for extra ‘like’ permissions simply to engage with new users and I wholeheartedly agree with @SimonInEdinburgh and everyone else about reframing the vision for the site.
Thank you for your feedback, if you’re interested in getting involved with testing and providing valuable feedback for our initiatives, I encourage you to visit the Stroke Association’s website. By following this link, Get Involved in Involvement Opportunities, you can sign up and play a crucial role in shaping our services and offerings.
Thank you but I wasn’t referring to that (and already aware). My comments were aimed at what SA can do at a broader level. Who can I raise my feedback to?
